M/s. Himani Agency Pvt. Ltd., Agartala V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirlcle- Agartala , Agartala

CO 07/GTY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6502 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K BHARDWAJ; UTTAM KUMAR BORTHAKUR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Reason to believe; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia); 6

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 33 / GAU / 2016 & C.O. NO.07/GAU/2016 (A/O ITA NO.33/GAU/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 ACIT, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, PARADISE CHOWUHANI, CITY CENTRE, 5 TH FLOOR, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA-799991 V/S . M/S HIMANI AGENCY PVT. LTD., GANGAIL ROAD, AGARTALA, TRIPURA (WEST) 799001 [ PAN NO. AABCH 6306 A ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT / /CO-OBJECTOR /BY APPELLANT SHRI A.K.BHARDWAJ, ADDL. CIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT UTTAM KUMAR BORTHAKUR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 09-07-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31-07-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTI ON FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARISE AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)- SHILLONGS ORDER 02.12.2015 PASSED IN CASE NO.AGT-7 /2013-14, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE(S) PERUSED. 2. IT EMERGES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT REV ENUES INSTANT APPEAL SUFFERS FROM SIX DAYS DELAY IN FILING. IT HAS PLACE D ON ITS CONDONATION PETITION ATTRIBUTING THEREOF TO THE FACT. THE ASSESSEE IS FA IR ENOUGH IN NOT DISPUTING CORRECTNESS OF THE SAID SOLEMN AVERMENTS. WE THEREF ORE CONDONE THE IMPUGNED DELAY OF SIX DAYS IN FILING AS NEITHER INT ENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE BUT ON ITA NO.33/GAU/16 & CO 07.GAU/16 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT, CIR-AGARTALA VS. M/S HIMANI AGENCY PVT. LTD. PAGE 2 ACCOUNT OF CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND REVENUES CONTROL. THIS APPEAL IS NOW TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 3. THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.33/GAU/2016 HAS P LEADED AS MANY AS FIVE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS. ITS FIRST GRIEVANCE IS TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES DISCOUNTS OFFERED ON SALE OF TITAN WATCHES AND TANISHQ JEWELLERY ITEMS AMOUNTING TO 12,49,269/- AS DELETED IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. MR. BHARDWAJ IS VE RY FAIR TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRONGLY INVOKED SECTION 6 9C OF THE ACT WHILST MAKING THIS DISALLOWANCE. HIS CASE HOWEVER IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE RELEVANT INVOICES AS WELL AS FRANCHIS E AGREEMENT(S) IN SUPPORT OF THE DISCOUNT MADE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTL Y DISALLOWED THIS DISCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUE S INSTANT SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARS TO HAVE SU MMONED FOUR OF THE ASSESSEES CUSTOMERS WHO CONFIRMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE CORRESPONDING DISCOUNTS ON PURCHASE OF TITAN WATCHES AND TANISHQ JEWELLERY. THIS DISCOUNT THEREFORE APPEARS ON COUNTER SALES AT REDUCED RATE THAN THAT APPROVED BY THE COMPANY FROM TIME TO TIME. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CLAUSE NO.14 OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT INDICATING THAT IT IS DOES NOT COVER SUCH COUNTER SALES. WE THEREFORE FIND NO ERROR IN THE CIT(A)S ACTION I N DELETING THE DISCOUNT DISALLOWANCE OF 12,49,269/-.THE REVENUES FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS FAILS. 4. NEXT COMES INTEREST DISALLOWANCE ISSUE OF 1,58,373/- PAID TO THE TITAN WATCHES AND TANISHQ JEWELLERY. WE NOTICE HEREIN ALS O THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE SAME AS CONTRACTUAL LIABILI TY OF INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT NOT ALLOWABLE SINCE PENAL IN NATURE. THE AB OVE STATED AGREEMENT ALSO INDICATES THAT IT IS AN INCIDENT OF CONTRACTUA L AND NOT A PENAL LIABILITY. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS IN DELETI NG THIS INTEREST DISALLOWANCE. 5. THIRD ISSUE HEREIN OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) DISALLOWANC E OF ASSESSEES PARTNER REMUNERATION AMOUNTING TO 1,17,420/- ON ACCOUNT OF ITS JEWELLERY INVOLVED THEREIN. THE AS APPEARS TO HAVE FILE AN ADDITIONAL DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT(A) SUFFICIENTLY PROVING THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDU CT TDS ON THE SAID PAYMENT IN THE NATURE OF SALARY. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE REV ENUE HAS NOT PLEADED ANY ITA NO.33/GAU/16 & CO 07.GAU/16 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT, CIR-AGARTALA VS. M/S HIMANI AGENCY PVT. LTD. PAGE 3 VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE IN-TAX RULES IN ITS GR OUNDS. CORRECTNESS OF THE SAID DETAILS IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. WE THEREFORE CONFIR M THE CIT(A)S FINDING DELETING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 6. THE REVENUES FOURTH SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKS TO REVIVE THE CLOSING STOCK DIFFERENCE OF 70,91,9213/- ON ACCOUNT OF ACTUAL STOCK FIGURES IN ASSESSEES STOCK STATEMENT/ REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUN T AND THAT GIVES TO THE CREDITOR BANK. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING HYPOTHETI CATION AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUES IS AS U NDER:- '8. GROUND NO. 6 THIS GROUND CHALLENGES THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKI NG ADDITION OF RS. 70,919231- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN STOCK. 8.1 AO OBSERVED THAT CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.03.2010 IN THE AUDITED A/C WAS RS.3,80,35,154/- WHEREAS THE FIGURE SHOWN TO BANK F OR THE SAME DATE WAS RS. 3,42,17, 7831-WHICH RESULTED IN DIFFERENCE OF RS 38 ,17,371/- AO FURTHER NOTED THAT STOCK STATEMENT FURNISHED TO BANK AS ON 309 2009 WA S RS 2,70,31,623/- THE SAME HAD BEEN FURNISHED WITH DECLARATION THAT THE POSITI ON WAS CORRECT AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF KNOWLEDGE OF APPELLANTS 8.2 TAKING RS 2,70,31,6231- AS STARTING POINT, AD W ENT AHEAD AND PREPARED A TRADING ALE FROM 01 1009 TO 31 03 10 AS FOLLOWS: - TRADING ACCOUNT (01.10.2003) 1. OPENING STOCK AS ON 1.10.09 RS.2,70,31,623 /- 1. BY SALE (1.10.09-31.3.10) RS.6,72,65,607/- ADD: 2. PURCHASE 1.10.09 TO 31.03.10 RS. 7,53,24,01 3/- 2. HANDLING CHARGES ON GEP/TEP RS. 45,157/- 3. DEBIT NOTE RS.7,58,823/- 3. CREDIT NOTE RS.28,56,990/- 4. GROSS PROFIT RS.1,21,80,372/- 4. CLOSING STOCK RS.4,51,27,077/- RS.11,52,94,831/- RS.11,52,94,831/ - AO THUS CAME OUT WITH CLOSING STOCK RS 4 51,27,077 WHICH IS MORE THAN THE CLOSING STOCK OF RS. 3' 0, 35, 154 SHOWN IN THE AUDITED ACC OUNT BY IS MUCH AS RS. 70,91,9231- AO TOOK EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS REPRO DUCED BELOW: IN REPLY TO CHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE .ASSESSEE COMPANY STATED 'THAT SIR, WE HAVE AVAILED CASH CREDIT FACILITY FROM CANARA BANK. THAT SIR, AS PER THE TERMS OF CASH CREDIT FACILITY FROM CANARA BANK, WE HAVE T O SUBMIT HALF- YEARLY STOCK STATEMENT TO THE BANK. THAT SIR, SUCH STOCK STATEME NT HAS TO BE FILED WITH THE BANK WITHIN 7 DAYS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH. THAT SIR, STOCK STATEMENT SO SUBMITTED CONTAINS THE VALUE OF STOCK AT THE END OF THE MONTH. THAT SIR, THE VALUE IN STOCK STATEMENT IS GIVEN ON ESTIMATED BASI S IS JUST TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TERMS OF CREDIT FACILITY. THAT S IR, THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT WERE GIVEN AFTER TAKING THE PHYSICAL STOCK, CONSIDERING ANY DEBIT OR CREDIT NOTE IN RELATION TO PURCHASE AND AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE PURCHASE ENTRIES. THAT SIR, UND ER THE ABOVE, YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT THERE CAN BE VARIATION OF 5% TO 10% IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK GIVEN ON ESTIMATED BASIS TO THE BANK AND THE VALUE OF STOCK ACCURATELY ARRIVED AT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX RETURN. TH AT SIR, YOU HAVE PREPARED ITA NO.33/GAU/16 & CO 07.GAU/16 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT, CIR-AGARTALA VS. M/S HIMANI AGENCY PVT. LTD. PAGE 4 A HALF YEARLY TRADING ACCOUNT BUT YOU HAVE NOT TAKE N CEP & TEP HALF YEARLY PURCHASE AND SALES FIGURES AND YOU HAVE ALSO TAKEN FULL YEAR GROSS PROFIT INSTEAD OF HALF YEARLY GROSS PROFIT. 11 A) TEP PURCHASE (1.10,09 TO 31.03.2010) = RS. 1,23, 41,672/- B) TEP' SALES (1.10.09 TO 31,03.2010) = RS. 1,43,07 ,7491 C) HALF YEARLY GROSS PROFIT (50%) = RS. 60,90,186 1- AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION FOR THE F OLLOWING REASONS A. 'THE TRADING ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PREPARED ON THE BA SIS OF STOCK STATEMENT AS ON 30.09.2009 AS CERTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CORRECT. THE BANK HAS SANCTIONED CASH CREDIT LIMIT ON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. B. THE SAID VALUATION OF STOCK IS TAKEN AS OPENING STOCK AS ON 01.10.2009 SO THE QUESTION OF NOT TAKING HALF YEARLY GEP & TEP DOES N OT ARISE. C. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST ON THE CASH CREDIT AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ESTIMATED STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BANK CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HE ACCORDINGLY ADD A SUM OF RS. 70,91,923 TO THE IN COME OF THE APPELLANT. 8.3 MAIN ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH IN COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS ARE GIVEN BELOW': I) STOCK AS ON 31.03.2010 AS PER AUDITED STATEMENT WHICH WAS RS. 3,80,35,154/- WAS HIGHER BY RS. 38,17,371/- THAN THE FIGURE OF RS. 3; 42,17,783/- SHOWN TO THE BANK PRIMA FACIE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TH ERE WAS SUPPRESSION OF STOCK. II). IF FIGURES GIVEN TO THE BANK WAS TO BE RELIED UPON. PURCHASES FOR THE WHOLE YEAR WOULD BE RS. 10,32,79,449/- (RS. 3,87,16,669/- + 6, 45,62,779/- WHICH ARE HALF-YEARLY FIGURES SHOWN TO THE BANK) WHEREAS PURCHASES AS PER AUDITED ALE IS RS. 12,42,11,774/- SIMILARLY SALES WILL BE RS. 10,31,54 ,228/- INSTEAD OF RS. 12,49,26,904/- WHICH WAS AS PER AUDITED ACCOUNT AND DULY SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. III) METHOD OF DERIVATION OF CLOSING STOCK BY AO WA S PALPABLE WRONG BECAUSE HE ARBITRARILY ACCEPTED PART OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN TO BANK WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OTHER PARTS OF THE SAME STATEMENT. FO R E.G. IF HE TOOK THE OPENING STOCK AS ON 01.10.2009 FROM STATEMENT GIVEN TO BANK, HE S HOULD ACCEPT THE CLOSING STOCK OF RS. 3,42,17,783/- SHOWN IN THE SAME STATEMENT, - SIMILARLY, AO WHILE TAKING THE OPENING STOCK AS P ER STATEMENT SUPPLIED TO BANK, HE DID NOT TAKE THE PURCHASE OF SALES FIGURES APPEARIN G IN THE SAME STATEMENT. AO VIOLATED BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTANCY IN NOT B IFURCATING THE GROSS PROFIT, DEBIT AND CREDIT NOTES & HANDLING CHARGES FOR THE TWO PER IODS I.E., PRE 1.10 ... 09 AND POST 1 10 09 LEADING TO TOTALLY MISLEADING AND ABSURD RE SULT IV) IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT EVEN THE BANK KNOWS/ ACCEPTS THAT SUCH STOCK FIGURES SUBMITTED TO IT PERIODICALLY ARE ONLY PROVISIONAL/A PPROXIMATE FIGURES. IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE SIMPLE REASON THAT AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL OF THE LOAN AGAINST HYPOTHECATED STOCK, THE AUDITED BALANCE-SHEET HAS TO BE SUBMITTE D TO THE BANK AND IN SPITE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STOCK IN THE STOCK STATEMENT AND IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET THE CANARA BANK NOT ONLY RENEWED THE SECURED LOAN B UT ALSO ALLOWED THE APPELLANT TO ITA NO.33/GAU/16 & CO 07.GAU/16 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT, CIR-AGARTALA VS. M/S HIMANI AGENCY PVT. LTD. PAGE 5 ENJOY INCREASED CREDIT OF RS.32,14,128.52 IN COMPAR ISON TO EARLIER YEAR CREDIT OF RS. 21,56,949.26. IT WAS ALSO ADDED THAT THERE WAS NO A VERMENT ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED. V) APPELLANT DULY SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DETAILS T O AO (A) RECONCILIATION OF QUANTITATIVE PURCHASES AND SALES. (B) TOTAL PURCHASES AND SALES FIGURES UNDER GOLD EX CHANGE PROGRAMS' CALLED GEP AND TEP. (C) MONTH-WISE OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK (BOTH QUANTITATIVE AS WELL IN TERMS OF MONEY) WITH RECONC ILIATION OF THE CLOSING-STOCK AFTER ADJUSTMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF DEBIT AND CREDIT NO TE VI) AO FAILED TO SHOW ANY MATERIAL DEFECT IN THE BO OKS OF A/CS. HE SOLELY RELIED IN STATEMENT FURNISHED TO BANK. THE BOOKS OF A/CS W ERE NOT EVEN REJECTED. VII) RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING EASE LAW S: A) CIT VS ACROW INDIA LTD (2008) 298 ITR 447(BOM BAY) B) CITVS PADMAVABATI COTTON MILLS [1999) 236 ITR 341 C) CIT VS SIDHU RICE & GENERAL MILLS [2006) 281 I TR 428 (P&H) 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION GIVE N AND THE FACTS ON RECORDS. IT IS A FACT THAT FIGURES OF STOCK SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT A RE NOT MATCHING WITH THE STOCK SHOWN IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNT APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED THAT FIGURES, GIVEN TO BANK PERIODICALLY WERE ONLY PROVISIONAL/APPROXIMATE FIGU RES. APPELLANT ADDED THAT AT TIME OF RENEWAL OF LOAN AGAINST HYPOTHECATED STOCKS, AUD ITED ACCOUNTS ALSO HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED. DIFFERENCES IN THE FIGURES WERE KNOWN TO BANKS, BUT THE BANK STILL RENEWED THE SECURED LOANS. 9.1 THERE ARE DECISIONS OF HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORI TIES WHEREIN IT HAVE BEEN HELD THAT INFLATED OR DOCTORED FIGURES GIVEN TO BANKS FOR OBT AINING LOAN CANNOT FORM BASIS OF MAKING ADDITION WITHOUT OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENC E. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS N SWAMY [2000] 241 ITR 363, IT WAS; HELD THAT INCOME SOUGHT TO BE TAXED HAS TO BE REAL AND WITHIN THE TAXING PROVISION. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES HAVE TO BE THERE INSTEAD OF TOTALLY RELYING ON STATEMENT GIVEN TO THIRD PARTIES. BESIDES DECISIONS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN. ITS SUPPORT, THERE A RE NUMBER OF DECISIONS WHEREIN: IT WAS HELD THAT STATEMENT FURNISHED TO BANK PER SE CA NNOT FORM BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION: 9.2 PRESENT APPELLANT IS NOT A CASE WHEREIN VERY IN FLATED FIGURES WERE GIVEN TO BANK. IF WE GO BY THE STATEMENT GIVEN TO BANK TOTAL PURCH ASES WOULD -BE RS.10,32,79.449/- AND SALES WOULD BE RS.10,3,228/-. THIS WOULD LEAD T O LOSS. HOWEVER, IN THE AUDITED FIGURES, APPELLANT HAD SHOWN PURCHASES OF RS.12,42, 11,774/- AND SALES OF RS.12,40,26,904/- WHICH RESULTED IN PROFIT. AS SUCH , PRIMA FACIE THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS UNDERSTATEMENT OF INCOME DECLARED IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNT AS COMPARED TO FIGURES GIVEN TO THE BANK. 9.3 THE AO HAD LIFTED A FIGURE SHOWN TO BANK AS ON 01.10.2009. BUT HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE PURCHASE AND SALES FIGURES FROM THAT S AME STATEMENT. IN DRAWING UP THE HALF-YEARLY TRADING, AO ADOPTED THE G.P. FOR THE WH OLE BAR. DEBIT NOTES AND CREDIT NOTES WERE ALSO NOT BIFURCATED. 9.4 CONSIDERING THE FACTS ON RECORDS, I AM NOT INCL INED TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PICKING UP SELECTED FIGURES FR OM STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO THE BANK AND COMING UP WITH A STOCK FI GURE WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY OTHER CORROBORATIVE MATERIALS. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK IS THEREFORE, DELETED GROUND NO 5 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APP ELLANT. ' ITA NO.33/GAU/16 & CO 07.GAU/16 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT, CIR-AGARTALA VS. M/S HIMANI AGENCY PVT. LTD. PAGE 6 7. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY C ONTENDS THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN DHANSIRAM AGARWALLA VS. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 192 (GAU) HAS CONFIRMED AN IDENTICAL ADDITION B ASED ON DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT VIS--VIS CORRE SPONDING FIGURES STATED IN THE HYPOTHETIC APPLICATION BEFORE THE BANK. MR. BHA RDWAJS CASE THEREFORE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY MADE THE IMP UGNED ADDITION OF DIFFERENT IN CLOSING STOCK DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. W E FIND NO REASON TO ACCEPT THESE ARGUMENT. IT TRANSPIRES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED IN TRIPURA. ITS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS HON'BLE AGARTALA HIGH COURT. LEARNED COUNSEL THEN SUBMITS THAT THE HON'BLEBLE A PEX COURT HAS DECLINED THE REVENUES SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP) PREFERRED AG AINST HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURTS DECISION (2010) 323 ITR 341 CIT VS. VEERDIP ROLLERS P. LTD . DELETING THE IDENTICAL ADDITION GOING BY THE ASSESS EES ACTUAL STOCK STATEMENT THAN AN UNVERIFIED ONE FILED BEFORE THE BANK AUTHOR ITIES. WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE SINCE HON'BLE TRIPURA HIGH COURT HAS NOT D ECIDED THE ISSUE, WE GO BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) AND ADOPT THE VIEW FAVOURIN G THE ASSESSEE. 8. MR. BHARDWAJ AT THIS STAGE VEHEMENTLY9 CONTENDED THAT ON THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDI TION IS LIABLE TO BE RESTORED. HE INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING IT CLEAR THAT HE HAD TAKEN THE ASSESSEES FORMER STOCK STATEMENT CLOSING FIGURES AS ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER TO BE OPENING STOCK FIGURES ON 01.10.201 0. WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE INSTANT ARGUMENT AS WELL SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDINGS HAVE NOWHERE DOUBTED THE CORRECTNESS OF AS SESSEES STOCK STATEMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE ACCORDINGLY DECLINE REV ENUES ARGUMENTS SEEKING TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH FACTUAL VERIFICATION AT THIS STAGE. THE CIT(A)S FI NDING STOOD AFFIRMED. 9. LASTLY COMES SECTION 40A(2) DISALLOWANCE OF PART NERSHIP REMUNERATION PAID TO THE ASSESSEES FEMALE PARTNER OF 4,80,000/-. THE REVENUES STAND AS PER THE ASSESSMENT FINDING APPEARS TO BE THAT THE F EMALE DIRECTOR(S) HAD NOT RENDERED THEIR SERVICES AT PAR WITH THE MALE DIRECT ORS. WE NOTICE IN THIS ITA NO.33/GAU/16 & CO 07.GAU/16 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT, CIR-AGARTALA VS. M/S HIMANI AGENCY PVT. LTD. PAGE 7 BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COMPARE D THE MARKET RATE OF THE ASSESSEES DIRECTORS SERVICES SO AS TO INVOKE THE I MPUGNED DISALLOWANCE PROVISION APPLICABLE ONLY QUA THE EXCESSIVE COMPONE NT INVOLVED IN THE PAYMENT TO FEMALE DIRECTORS. WE THEREFORE, CONFIRM CIT(A)S FINDING DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS COUNT ALONE. THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION CO NO.07/GAU/201 6 SUPPORTIVE OF THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS. 11. THIS REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.33/GAU/2016 IS DIS MISSED AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.07/GAU/2016 IS DISMIS SED SINCE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 34(3) OF T HE ITAT RULES BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD 31/07/2019 SD/- SD/- ( $) (&' $) ( A.L.SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) GUWAHATI, *DKP (- 31 / 07 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ACIT, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, PARADISE CHOWMUHA NI, CITY CENTRE 5TH FLOOR, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA,PIN-799991 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S HMANI AGENCY PVT. LTD., GANGAIL ROA D, AGARTALA-799001 3. 3 4 9 / CONCERNED CIT GUWAHATI 4. 4- / CIT (A) GUWAHATI 5. < ''3, 3, 9 / DR, ITAT, GUWAHATI 6. B / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (ON TOUR) 3,